Let's Go Blues

The link doesn't specify salary, but JR just tweeted:

The #stlblues have re-signed defenseman Barret Jackman. It's a three-year deal worth $9.5 million ($3, $3.25, $3.25).

That's not bad. I personally believe it was Jackman's best season overall since the lockout (though he sucked in the playoffs). And it's a step down from what he made last deal, so it's saving you some money too.

I won't completely judge the deal until the free agency period is over. If this is all the Blues do, I won't be too excited. But if they can supplement that with another bona-fide D-man, I'll feel pretty good about the Blues' D.

At 3ish million per, I approve of this.

People dog on Jackman all the time, but as long as he isn't on the top pairing, he's a good guy to have in your lineup.

I was worried he'd make 4 or 5 million per. I think he probably could have elsewhere... this is almost assuredly a hometown discount from him.

Tired of this chump

dmiles2186 wrote: I won't completely judge the deal until the free agency period is over. If this is all the Blues do, I won't be too excited. But if they can supplement that with another bona-fide D-man, I'll feel pretty good about the Blues' D.

This......If you just overpaid your #5 0r #6 Defenseman....I can live with it (don;t love it.....but could live with it)

If you think you're running this chump out as one of your top two parings for the next three years.......you're F'ing nuts!

Surprised but not surprised, concurrently.

kodos wrote:At 3ish million per, I approve of this.

People dog on Jackman all the time, but as long as he isn't on the top pairing, he's a good guy to have in your lineup.

I was worried he'd make 4 or 5 million per. I think he probably could have elsewhere... this is almost assuredly a hometown discount from him.

I think its a little much, I would of gone to 2.5 per year, and thats it. Guy ran out of gas this past year, plain and simple.

According to JR, "Army says he's looking for a top 4 guy"

You're still using close to 6% of your expected total payroll on a bottom two defenseman, but at least it looks as though they don;t plan to compound the problem by forcing Jacks into a roll he can't fill just to justify his paycheck.

Yes, I realize how stupid that sounds, but I'm trying everything I can to rationalize the signing.

I like it.

I think the options had we NOT signed Jackman would have really stunk.

Now go get Suter/Wideman.

Maybe I'm not quite up to speed on what "depth defensemen" are going for nowadays but $3.25 million seems an awful lot to me for a #3-6 D-man.

Puck Daddy headline yesterday gave me a chuckle: "Barret Jackman signs with Blues for 3 years, $9.5 million; will still be blamed for everything"

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck- ... --nhl.html

dmiles2186 wrote:Puck Daddy headline yesterday gave me a chuckle: "Barret Jackman signs with Blues for 3 years, $9.5 million; will still be blamed for everything"

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck- ... --nhl.html

That's the part that sucks. SO many fans are stupid with they way they trough out useless criticism and don't really know what they are watching that once someone becomes the local 'whipping boy' then the honest complaints of his play fall are ignored.

Jacks played much better for the first three quarters of the season last year and that fact should not be ignored. However, neither should the fact that he faded down the stretch, was terrible in the playoffs, and had been horrendous in previous seasons.

I have no problem with Jackman being back and fighting to be part of the bottom pairing. What I'm not exactly comfortable with is not only devoting 6% of your payroll to a guy that should garner the 5th or 6th most ice time among your defensemen, should and should never see PP time, but you also gave him a 3 year deal and a NTC.

All that said.....if this is the worst thing we can complain about with Army's offseason when the puck drops on the 2012 -2013 season....I think we can all live with it.

ITS TEH SUMUR OF SYNEENGS!!!

PARHT TOO!!1!1!!!